3 ms·
It might not violate copyright, but it may violate a "right of publicity" for imitating the voice of someone else. See e.g., Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d
by bdowling 3y ago
It might not violate copyright, but it may violate a "right of publicity" for imitating the voice of someone else. See e.g., Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988), in which Bette Midler sued Ford Motor Company for commercials in which Ford used a sound-alike singer to copy Midler's voice.
- harshreality 3y agoIf that's what they're going for, it might have helped if they'd consulted more competent lawyers and issued a more accurate statement, rather than saying that the AI song represents "a violation of copyright law" (image-quoted in the article). Taking a brief look at that case, the way AI is being used is distinguished from that case in an important respect. Hedwig, a backup singer for Midler, mimicked a specific song that Midler had made, after Ford couldn't get Midler to perform it for their ad. It seems reasonable that doing that, for profit and for broadcast, would violate Midler's right of publicity, and maybe even the performance copyright on the existing song.
- bdowling 3y agoI wouldn’t say that training on copyrighted material definitely isn’t copyright infringement, because training may require making a copy into memory for the training algorithm. That may be enough. In Midler v. Ford, Ford had a license from the publisher to use the song, so Midler’s case was based on the publicity right, if I recall correctly. Also, the publicity right can’t be implicated just by copying a style or genre. It has to be imitating the person without permission.